[Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution?

[valdelli at bluemail.ch]

Do You know that not all could be verified and for some points is it 
unnecessary the verifiability?

IMHO only disputed article MUST have references and MUST be 
supported by verifiability to limit personal opinions and to avoid 
the article to become a "drawing room". For other article this choice 
could be optional.

In scientific editions all MUST be checked and confirmed by the 
authority of others books or researches, but there is a limit... also 
the books and researches could make a mistake. If a researcher  takes 
care extremely on them, he has not chance.

And in any case not all could be found in references... after this 
limit we cross in the research and this is this should be hoped 
because without the research there is no progress.

The choice is here: Wikipedia looks to be a simple collector of 
knowledge (verified and checked) or Wikipedia believes to be opened 
also to the new researches?

At end one reflection, when Einstein was producing his new theories 
all scientists judged him as a bizarre man also because there was 
nothing to support his suppositions... now his suppositions are a 
pillar in the Physic. This is a conclusion to display that references 
don't assure the certitude and the truth.

There are men who need extreme verifiability and they like to call 
themselves as "pragmatic", there are other men who need critic 
verifiability to start a journey for new borders, to see over the 
first ones.

Ilario 


----Messaggio originale----
Da: Christoph.Seydl at students.jku.at
Data: 17.09.06 10.52
A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution?

Contrary: If the principle of verifiability is not defined in 
basic
principles, there is always discordance:

....

You see that there is a lot of discordance among Wikipedians. If 
there
is no policy, there is always dispute how to deal with 
verifiability.
The question is: Which information has to be sourced? I think that 
the
verifiability issue should be outlined, if it is a pillar.

/Chris


Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Saying that we follow the principle of verifiability should be 
enough.  
> When you get too specific, we unfortunately have many people who 
are 
> determined to take it to extremes at either end of the scale.  
Some will 
> accept the most ephemeral of data as verification, while others 
will 
> insist that even the most broadly observed information must 
'''always''' 
> show references. 
>